Cryptor Trust

An important top in #Bitcoin #TA #elliottwave #crypto #cryptocurrency #elliottwavetechnician elliottwavetechnician.com/an-important-t…

It works!!!! 1 Bitaxe Gamma 1 LTE router  1 $6 SIM card  I can now mine Bitcoin off-grid with no internet connection

Bitcoin Core v29.0 was released! It is available from: bitcoincore.org/en/download/ Release notes: bitcoincore.org/en/releases/29…

Thailand Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister announced new project making it easier for tourists to use bitcoin and cryptocurrency in Phuket 🇹🇭

1 #Bitcoin is now worth more than 1kg of Gold Goldbugs in disbelief... 🤣

Industry leaders back open-source AI definition artificialintelligence-news.com/news/industry-…

BREAKING: 🇷🇺 President Putin signs law legalizing #Bitcoin and crypto mining in Russia.

BREAKING: 🇷🇺 Russia to legalise #Bitcoin and crypto as a foreign currency for international payments - Bloomberg HUGE!

Support privacy. Follow @Logos_network

The team at Boltz is building something truly special. Their platform is becoming the go-to bridge between the mainchain and its second-layer protocols. Non-custodial, cheap and private. ⚡️🌊

Bitcoin Core v26.1 was released! It is available from: bitcoincore.org/en/download/ Release notes: bitcoincore.org/en/releases/26…

SRC-20 tokens will make New Millionaires in 2024 Undervalued Ecosystem + Possible Exchange Listing A Thread (Must Read)🧵 #SRC20

#Bitcoin legend Hal Finney talking about ZK Proof 26 years ago in 1998 🤯

"Head & Shoulders" pattern on #Bitcoin. The chart comparison here explains to you how bearish $BTC and how bullish $ETH are. Note that both the horizontal support/resistance zone on BTC and descending trendline on ETH are plotted from June 2023.

PSA: “Inscriptions” are exploiting a vulnerability in #Bitcoin Core to spam the blockchain. Bitcoin Core has, since 2013, allowed users to set a limit on the size of extra data in transactions they relay or mine (`-datacarriersize`). By obfuscating their data as program code, Inscriptions bypass this limit. This bug was recently fixed in Bitcoin Knots v25.1. It took longer than usual due to my workflow being severely disrupted at the end of last year (v24 was skipped entirely). Bitcoin Core is still vulnerable in the upcoming v26 release. I can only hope it will finally get fixed before v27 next year.

Lightning is the best solution currently available, but it's not good enough. Lightning has several fundamental flaws, where each of them make the system as a whole a dead end for bitcoin, long term. An attempt at explaining these, and what we should do instead. Liquidity management The single biggest issue with Lightning is the concept of liquidity. On base layer bitcoin, you can always: 1. receive any amount, without any pre-requisites. 2. send any amount, as long as you have enough balance in your wallet 3. send the entire balance of your wallet, save for the fee of the specific payment you're making In Lightning, you can do neither of these. The concept of liquidity is an enormous step back compared to base layer of bitcoin. Online interactivity When sending and receiving payments on Lightning, you need to be online. This is not the case with base layer bitcoin! This is a great property of base layer bitcoin: you can always receive money, without having to do anything. Go camping for a week in the desert, or live in a giant faraday cage. You can still receive money! You can even send money while offline. Neither transaction construction nor signing requires being online. The only part that requires some kind of connectivity is the transaction broadcast, but that can be completed in a multitude of different ways. Onboarding through L1 interaction Onboarding a new user to Lightning requires interacting with base layer bitcoin. It is simply impossible to receive money non-custodially without something happening on the blockchain. This is a a complete non-starter in a high fee-rate environment, as more and more people have started to realize the last few days. Security model relies on L1 interaction The security model of Lightning relies on taking bad actors to the blockchain court, and punishing them on layer one. This ties the security model of payments directly to the fee rate on layer 1. When the cost of settling the fraud attempt exceeds the payment size, your security model is non-existent. Lightning is simply put not secure in a high fee environment. Unreliable payments One of the more frustrating parts of Lightning payments is that they can sometimes fail, and sometimes succeed. It's impossible to tell what will happen with absolute certainty before initiating the payments, and payments can fail, even if they successfully leave your wallet! This is hard to understand for people that are not in the deep weeds of Lightning intricacies, and a constant source of frustration for users. --- The sum of all of these points is that we pushed most users onto custodial wallets: Wallet of Satoshi being the biggest example, but also exchanges & brokers like Strike and Cash App. Rebuttals of this are most of the time along the lines of "this is solved with custodial Lightning wallets, and custodial wallets are fine for smaller amounts". I think we can do better, as long as we accept the fact that there's going to be a small degradation in security model compared to base layer bitcoin. This acceptance is the important part! With Lightning we aimed for ~no degradation, and got an absolutely massive degradation, with most users pushed to fully custodial solutions. That's (at least!) a 95% step back from base layer security, whereas a more sober goal should be a 10% reduction in security. How should we do this? We should go back to the roots of bitcoin wallets! Old school bitcoin wallets operate in a very simple way: hold user keys, connect to the P2P network and request data, verify transactions using Simplified Payment Verification (SPV). This worked great, for a long time! Users held their own keys, any amounts could be sent and received, and there were very few nasty surprises related to payment stability. The main problem with this is of course the block size limit, and bitcoin's slow block time. The block size limits the throughput and cost effectiveness, and the slow block time leads to bad payment UX (although there are workarounds to this). Time for the controversial part of this argument: we should take a leaf out of the big blocker book. Bitcoin is a great payment system when blocks are large, and block space is abundant. The problem is of course that this breaks bitcoin's security model, because a large-block system leads to centralization of the network. We solve this by offloading the large blocks to a sidechain, and accepting the centralization. There are several sensible proposals on the table that gives us better sidechains than what we currently have. We should activate one (or more!) of these, and create a large-and-quick blockchain for payments. To start with we could go for bandwidth equivalent to a few hundred megabytes every minute, broken down into block times that are on the order of a few seconds. This gives us enough block space for the foreseeable future, and when it isn't enough we can either increase it even further, or build out a network of interconnected large-and-quick blockchains. This gives us a payment system with the following desirable characteristics: 1. Any amount can be sent and received at any time 2. Onboarding doesn't require interaction with the base layer, because the user can receive funds to their own non-custodial wallet straight away 3. Payments can always be received, even if the user is offline 4. The security model doesn't break down when fees on layer one gets pricey (because the security model accepts the fact that L1 is unavailable, from the onset) 5. Payments can be managed on mobile devices, without needing to run complex and resource-intensive software The singular bad characteristic of this system is that users don't fully verify all transactions, and could in theory be defrauded with fake coins. This is strictly superior to the current situation, where we have a system where: 1. Power-users are never at risk of being defrauded, but their security model (alongside everyone else's!) break down completely when fees on L1 gets too high 2. Casual users (making up 95+% of the total user population) are constantly at risk of being defrauded, in addition to the constant risk of rug pulls, personal data being stolen by hackers and shotgun KYC. --- Lightning is not good enough, on a structural and foundational level. It's the best thing we've currently got, and a technical miracle, when considering the limitations of bitcoin's current capacity for creating L2s. I have immense respect for all the protocol and app developers that have made Lightning what it currently is, and this post is not an attempt at discrediting any of their hard work. However, we have to do better. We need to upgrade the scripting capabilities of bitcoin to let us realize more powerful L2 solutions. I think the best thing we currently have for this is Drivechain (BIP300/301). Let's get it activated, and usher in a new era of layer 2 solutions where we don't have to accept shitty user experience and capital constraints, just because it's the best we've got.

A new release candidate of Bitcoin Core, v26.0rc2, is available for testing. This is a new major release, and follows v25.0. It is available from: bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-co… Release annoucement: lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitc… v26.0rc1 was abandoned after minor packaging issues.

This NEEDS to be talked about... If you have $1 of Ethereum, you can't even make a transaction... If you have $1 of $ALGO you can make 10,500 transactions with it... If you have $1 of $HBAR you can make 10,000 transactions with it... Microtransactions are possible with these

Gatekeep all you want. We'll bulldoze right through you like we've unapologetically done since day one. Cross chain atomic swaps between BTC and XMR are here, we've been hard at work to make it a reality, wipe the tears from your delicate little laser eyes.